Saturday, December 30, 2017

I can honestly say (as will most men) that the single largest waste of our time was chasing girls in our youth. A friend of mine and I often noted that had we spent the same resources, time, energy, and finances pursuing doctorates or careers, we would be immeasurably better off, and arguably with the same level of success with women. The "repriortization" or "depriortization" of women in your life is not only key to the success of every young man, but ironically, the key to being successful with women. Merely "chasing girls" does not build character, galvanize you, give you skills, or make you into the man women seek out. But pursuing your own hobbies, interests, careers, and education does, ironically meaning if you want women, don't make them a priority.

Still, I had a client ask an interesting question about when did I realize the time and resources spent pursuing women was not worth it and the story is of value for any young (or old) man today.

Wednesday, December 27, 2017

I wanted to highlight this podcast by The Black Brigade Debrief because of a particular story he tells in this episode. It was about how one of his employers would say "we got 'em!!!!" when a new hire, upon accepting their job offer, would go out and borrow money to buy a brand new car or truck.

I cannot emphasize this enough about gray haired bosses and baby boomer scum and how they look at the younger generations as a source to feed upon. Your employers, the corporations, and supervisors do NOT look at you as some kind of "vital member to the team," but rather as a tool to advance their own aims. And they CONSCIOUSLY push younger people to endebt themselves so that you need them more than they need you, thus allowing them NOT ONLY the ability to squeeze more work out of you for less pay, but to maliciously and sadistically get off on treating you like shit.

Do NOT go into debt.
Do NOT buy cars you can't afford.
Do NOT sign mortgages for McMansions cause wifey poo wants you to.

Tuesday, December 26, 2017

I answer an Asshole Consulting client's questions about whether cryptocurrencies are in a bubble, is there a "crypto-cult" of technologists, what's driving the value of bitcoin and the future of cryptocurrencies.

Much as I politically disagree with Cenk, this is what every guy does, as does every girl at a bachelorette party, their own discussion boards, and in their own private conversations. And if it were to come to light that women were talking/posting/podcasting lewdly about men, I would more or less just write it off as women having fun and gossiping about the opposite sex as everybody does.

But, since we are in Nazi-America, what a man said 10 years ago on an obscure blog is now being cited as concrete evidence of sexism, which in reality, it's just boorish, crass men being boorish crass men.

The only problem is Cenk has been politically championing this insane, totalitarian level of speech and thought control branded and sold by the left. If he stood up and said, "yeah, I said those things, and no I'm not apologizing. They were crass and rude, but that's male nature. And let s/he who's never made a crass joke about the opposite sex cast the first stone" this would have gone away and women would've even been more turned on by him."

But he is a leftist and alas, you must sacrifice yourself and obey the leftist political party religion.

Monday, December 25, 2017

Our resident model Cindy Moran will not return until the next Christmas shopping season. You may continue to make all your online purchases here or by clicking on the Amazon banner conveniently located in the right side bar.

Good lord. You're going to need sex contracts in your bedroom, replete with dates, signatures and everything. And even then, I'm seeing lawyers saying "Should couldn't sign that document because she was tipsy." Sweden indeed needs to enjoy the decline.

Friday, December 22, 2017

I always got a kick how Apple users claim to be independent and avant garde, but Apple is hands down the most tyrannical and controlling company out there when it comes to their products. You can't plug in an iPhone like a thumb drive and transfer files. You HAVE TO go through the iPhone store if you wish to listen to any podcasts. And now, Apple can just remotely slow your computer down if you downloaded the latest update. Perhaps you can all get some really cool tattoos to show how hip and independent you guys are.

Six full years before "Conservathots" and "Tradthots" were coined, and a full 4 years before Laura Southern provided masturbation material for hard-up conservative beta males, there was a young girl called "Katie Kieffer." She was a local Minneapolis girl, attending the University of St. Thomas I believe, and she hit the local conservative news network with force. She was interviewed on the Jason Lewis show, she was interviewed on all the local conservative talk shows, she got a gig on Townhall, and soon was on Foxnews, CNN, MSNBC and all the other networks.

Who was this conservative starlet?
What great insights did she have into politics others didn't?
Was this the second coming of Ann Coulter?
And what sage wise Milton-Friedmanesque wisdom did this woman have?

The answer was "nothing." She was just the original "proto-Conservathot."

After hearing enough about her I decided to look into her and found out she was just a pretty young 23 year old, regurgitating political talking points that Hannity had been doing for decades, and economic philosophers for centuries. What particularly irked me was here was:

a spoiled child from the suburbs,
living on Daddy's dime,
attending a prestigious private college,
majoring in a worthless degree,
never worked a DAY in her life,
who couldn't possibly have the life experience to be sought after or championed by the conservative establishment

yet

she gets on all the talk shows,
all the middle aged men in media pulling her favors,
a publishing deal from Random House,
for a millennial driveling book (though not a pamphlet like Laura Southern's),
paid speaking gigs,
and a plethora of other perks and preferential treatment that culminates into what is nothing short than an entire FREE life long career,

just because she's a cute set of T & A.

At the time I wrote it off for what it was - male nature. Old, middle aged men want to bang hot younger women. And if that rare unicorn of a cute young girl who isn't a liberal comes along, well just like the one black guy at a libertarian rally, he becomes your keynote speaker. And so I left it at that, knowing "boys will be boys."

But then an interesting thing happened since 2011. Specifically, bandwidth. It was increasing, coming down in price and this new company called "YouTube" was allowing people to make videos and post them on the internet for free. I thought it was a great innovation, allowing the new media to pull off the trifecta of print (blogs), radio (podcasts), and television(YouTube) that the dinosaur media had, but it opened hell's gate to a scourge that would inevitably flood us - the TradThots.

It started with Julie Borowski who to this day I do not consider a Conservathot. She was original, she was funny, and there was more than an ounce of original thought and originality to her videos. But what could not be denied was the disproportionate number of views and followers she had compared to her male contemporaries. A cute girl, saying obvious shit, would garner 500% more followers than men doing equal, if not, harder original intellectual work. And not only would she get 500% more followers, nearly all those followers would be sexually deprived, beta conservative cucks who would sing their praises, telling them daily, nay, hourly how beautiful AND intelligent they were, not to mention...

contribute livable amounts of money to their patreon accounts.

Once the word got out, it became apparent Julie was merely going to be the original pioneer, blazing a trail for scores of lesser Tradthot settlers. And from 2014 they came in by the truckload.

But come in by the truckload as they may, the scores of them rarely, if ever contributed anything of value, worth, or merit to the canon of conservative, free market, and libertarian work. Not one of them advanced conservative or libertarian thought. Not one of them originated an epiphany that might genuinely intrigue an intelligent mind. They were merely eye candy, the cheerleaders on the sidelines, yet playing make-believe as if they were actually doing the heavy lifting on the field.

If there was an ounce of intellectual honesty, a modicum of meritocracy amongst the "non-left," these Tradthots would be recognized for the more-or-less pointless people they are. Yes, they're pretty. And what guy doesn't like seeing a pretty set of legs on Foxnews? But they're not. They are instead instantly promoted to the top ranks of the establishment and social right. They are rewarded with the fanfare, followers, subscribership, and popularity they have today. Worse, the establishment invests precious economic, financial, time, media, and social capital into these Conservathots, more often than not presenting them as a poor face for the conservative movement.

But perhaps what was the straw that broke this camel's back was Laura Southern's book. And not so much her book, but the response to it.

Laura Southern, perhaps the "Queen Thot" of the "conservative movement," wrote a book with the title:

You would think with a deep and heavy title like that it would be a long and thought-filled piece. Each topic alone (Baby Boomers, immigration, Islam, Millennials, and generational economics) warranting easily 200 pages each. Why, this must be her pinnacle life's work. Her opus magnum. Something that would take weeks to read, perhaps years to digest, and would rank among "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith.

It's a 90 page pamphlet.

90

freaking

pages.

This lackluster, lazy, and ultimately "mailing it in" work effort should obviously have been mocked and ridiculed right off the stage. Forget that it was written by a know-nothing (then) 20 year old child. Forget that it could not have done ANY of the topics in the title adequate justice. A book with that title coming in at only 90 pages should have an Amazon sales rank of 12,000,000th place, a 1 star review, and no more than 30 copies sold to close (and charitable) family and friends.

The reality?

It's currently ranked 58,000th place (VERY GOOD for a self published book)
Has 377 reviews.
And a 4.5 star rating out of 5 possible stars.

The lesson to learn here, however, is not one of besmirching, mocking and ridiculing Conservathots and Tradthots. In all honesty I can't blame these pretty girls (whether they're actually conservative or not) at all for capitalizing on their beauty. If conservative, libertarian, and non-leftist men are horny and stupid enough to reward beauty over intelligence, then so be it. I hope these girls continue to make millions on their patreons and really lousy books. But that's the key point right there.

"Rewarding beauty over intelligence."

And that is why western civilization deserves to die.

Understand I don't expect a lot of people in my corner. Women are lobbied and propagandized to love a government check more than their family or husband. Minorities are lobbied to sacrifice economic success for the democrat party. And shoot, the political ideology of libertarianism, freedom, and excellence is just not all that palatable to the rank and file sheeple out there who want their gubmint gimmedats and craddle-to-grave hammock socialism.

But if you can't even get conservative and libertarian men to reward excellence, intelligence, freedom, meritocracy, and genuine intellectual originality over T & A, then what kind of society can you possibly expect to have? If you have what is presumably the most conservative, freedom loving and moral of men, the stewards and defenders of a free society, sending their likes, subscriptions, forwards, money, and overall general support to 21 year old female children because "titties" why should genuine intellectual titans, philosophers, and advocates defend that civilization?

I wrote the book "Enjoy the Decline" for a reason. And now that I see a cute set of tits is more important to the majority of self-proclaimed conservative and libertarian men than the freedom and greatness Western Civilization became over these past 3,000 years, you'll forgive me if I do just that.
________________

If you want to read some REAL BOOKS that aren't merely 90 page pamphlets and actually...you know...have something intelligent to say, consider purchasing one of my books which you can find here. That's if you can take a break from jerking off to Tradthots and would like to actually improve your mind.

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

Should you take back your ex (asshole consulting).
Driving across a country for a girl.
Female sterotypes banned from advertising in the UK.
Minneapolis businesses moving out or closing due to minimum wage.
You DON'T own your business in large liberal towns.

Related - Cynical Libertarian Society is back! He had a lame excuse of working 110.75 hours this past week as to why he hasn't podcasted in a while. Remember, Cynical Libertarian Society is NOT politically correct and ever crosses the line by my standards. But if you're looking for pure (though often disagreeable) rage, give him a listen.

Friday, December 15, 2017

Be it the hoity toity bars sitting atop skyscrapers in downtown areas, serving $300 pours of scotch,
The run of the mill franchise bars such as Applebee's and Ruby Tuesday that dot the suburbanite landscape,
The classical dive bars that have hide out in the country's major metros, yet to be affected by gentrification,
Or the quiet token VFW or corner bar that every prairie state small town must have,

my motorcycle adventuring combined with alcoholism has ensured I've sampled my fair share of bars in these United States of America.

But one thing has remained consistent. A universal constant that you will find in every bar in America, whether you're in the desolate prairies of North Dakota or the schwankiest of schwank bars in the up and coming hipster area of New York City. You apparently need to have the sports channel on.

I find this annoying on several levels.

First, just because ESPN or Sports Center is on, doesn't mean there's an actual sport being played. Much worse are the limitless number of post-post-pre-post-pre sports shows that analyze either a game that was just played or speculate about one that is about to be played. If it was just one show immediately before or after a game was played, I could understand. But these channels manage to speak blather 24-7, whether or not there is something worth talking about.

Second (and worse), sports commentators put on the veneer that what they're talking about is important or some kind of science. There's analysis, graphics showing the projection of the ball as if the quarter back did some geometric calculations before throwing it, and my favorite, where old retired players go out onto the field in suits (and tennis shoes) and explain to the arm-chair slob the "science" behind some kind of play re-enacting it with their knee replacements. This is only outdone with the quasi-political sports analysis show where they cover the latest news in the sports world as if it were "This Week in Washington." It's so painful I've often asked the bar tender to turn off the television or change the channel to AMC.

Third, though I appreciate a good game, much like political talk shows, female day time talk shows, or CNBC, 75% of sports channels' programming is just mind-numbing drivel. And I don't mean to say it's boring. I mean it's MIND NUMBING. It's painful. It's painfully pointless, it goes nowhere, it does not feed your soul or even slightly entertain your mind. It does nothing to advance you or improve your life. Now, admittedly I'm not your rank and file normie who wears another man's jersey drinking light beer at the local sports bar, horking down wings. Nor am I a dude bro who actually thinks there's a science or some kind of important analysis being conducted as I stroke my chin and call into sports talk shows to share my opinion why I think Bart Starr was a better quarterback than Brett Favre, as I contemplate majoring in Sports Management. But though I'm in the minority when it comes to America's obsession with sports, you can't tell me that the majority of men (and women) sitting in bars today are watching, even paying attention to what is being said on these various sports channels.

If you run a designated "sports bar," then of course, the whole point and purpose of your bar is to show the game, the pre-game show, the post-game show, and the pre-pre-post-pre-post-post game analysis show. Open up the bloody mary bar, get out those wings, sell light beer at a discount special and open up the door for the hoards of other-mens'-jersey-wearing-men and they cheer on "their" team. But for the remaining 75% of bars out there, sports channels are lessening the experience.

I go to a bar to converse with my friends. Whet my whistle after a long stint on the motorcycle. To appreciate the wood work of the actual bar and the architecture of the bar itself. Often times just to see what the locals look like so I get a better feel of America. I even appreciate how they stack the bottles of booze to make an almost cathedral like work of art (eg. below, the St. Paul Hotel's bar in St. Paul, Minnesota)

All of that is ruined if you have the sports channel on, just like a loud thunderous fart in church. Sports analysis shows, faux sports "analysts" and "sports news coverage," and pre-pre-post-post-post-pre game shows ruin the ambience, ruin the experience, detract from people's intelligent conversation, prevent people from bonding, and lessen the overall bar-going experience. You are introducing a low-brow, idiot-talking heads level variable into what is likely a 115+ IQ environment. At best people ignore it, but most cannot help but look at the TV since it's being shoved right in their face.

But there is another more compelling reason for non-dedicated sports bars to consider turning off the sports channel, or perhaps ditching the TV altogether. Social media and smart phones.

I don't know if you noticed but your younger bar-goers are not watching the TV as much as they are their smart phones. And even if Jimmy McShootzemgood is providing his analysis of the recently completed Vikings Bears game, they really do have more important stuff to attend to on their smart phones. This doesn't mean your older clientele won't occasionally look at the TV, perhaps show up if there's an actual game on, but how much money would you save if you got rid of the score of flat panel TV's you have in your bar and got rid of your cable subscription? And would it cost you more in lost customers because you "didn't have the game on?" Admittedly many bars' business models rely on having the game on and showing sports to the bread-and-circus-consuming masses, but out of pure curiosity and experimentation could you just try turning off the sports channel for a week? Could you switch it to AMC or the cartoon network? I think you might be surprised, especially if you're a higher end bar, just how little sports brings in customers, and how much money you'd save on a cable bill.

Again, this is not a call for all American bars to turn off the TV's. I understand the Normies of America need there "sportzball" and the critical analysis thereof the sports channels provide. But for those of us who just want to have a drink, chill out at an old oak bar, talk to the patrons at the American Legion, or not have our eyes and minds raped with the stupidity that is the sports channel, would you mind just changing the channel or turning off the TV just once to see what happens?

I told the story before, but I'll tell the story again, but many years ago when Cappy was but a young 20 something in Minneapolis, it was a near-guarantee he would be the only non-leftist at the various house parties he attended. In part because of his peer group's age, in part because of Minneapolis' politics, he was almost always guaranteed to be the sole non-left at a party.

Sure enough this presented some social hurdles to clear in that sooner or later, usually in the midst of macking on some girl, a pansy, limp-wristed guy would come up to the Captain and tell the girl he was trying to woo that "did you know he's a REPUBLICAN!!!!???" Sure enough this would bring Cappy's Cary-Grant-level romantic advances to a screeching halt as the object of his affection would then start to interrogate him instead of waiver between going home with him.

To combat this the Captain would burn CD's (because that was the technology in the day) with various economic data so when the party he was at decided to gang up against him, he could point to the data, charts, and graphs empirically proving he was right, they were brainwashed, and perhaps they could reconsider their political and philosophical positions in life...and that cute redhead would go home with him.

Fat chance.

All that would happen is not much different than what happens today. If you didn't go with the crowd, if you didn't believe in socialism, if you didn't vote DFL/democrat, then you were a racist, hated women, murdered kittens, and punched puppies.

And so I learned early on that you simply cannot convince leftists or any ideologue who subscribes to a particular political religion because they did not go out and study charts, graphs and data like the humble Captain did. Just like religion, they CHOSE to believe in said unsubstantiated political-religion and there's no way to convince somebody when they simply "choose."

Therefore, I'm laying down a challenge to those of you who are undecided, centrists, or are just apolitical. And that is to simply entertain...

one
simple
painfully clear

observation.

"Where on the political spectrum is America's current day political insanity coming from?"

Taking politics out of it, you have to admit that it seems American politics has become increasingly insane. Everyday in the news the internet seems to drudge up ever increasing and ever-more political insanity that not only makes you shake your head, but makes you worried about America's future. And though there is no way to neatly categorize these news stories, after some thought and consideration I've managed to come up with roughly 4 general categories you're almost guaranteed to see a new news story about insanity in American politics.

The first category is feminism.

Like the other three categories there is a limitless number of examples of political insanity. There was the pussy hat protests where women knitted pink hats, made to look like a woman's vagina, and they marched on DC to protest the election of Donald Trump. Closely related are slut walks that have nothing to do with the election of Donald Trump but is a favorite past time of feminists where they dress like sluts and march in public because women should be allowed to wear whatever they want without attracting the attention of men, specifically in the form of sexual assault and harassment. There's the fake rape epidemic epitomized by the University of Virginia's false rape accusation further perpetrated by an article in Rolling Stone magazine. But this should have been prevented had you followed Antioch's sexual consent policy where a man must ask, at each stage of sexual progress, permission to hold a girl's hand, put his hand on her shoulder, kiss her, and (GASP) maybe even fornicate! To top it all off, then there's feminists just yelling and screaming at the sky when Trump is elected, or (if you wish to be more formal about it) you put together an event where you communally yell at the sky to commemorate Trump being elected.

Second, and somewhat closely related, the ever increasing number of sexes.

There are, of course, not 63 genders. There are three. Straight, bi and gay. The remainders are variations, derivations, and permutations of the aforementioned, introducing concepts like "sapio sexual" (being attracted to intelligent people) which are nothing more than splitting hairs. But while you'd think nobody would really believe in these ever-increasing number of genders, oh how mistaken you were. For not only does creating new genders make worthless academics feel like they're doing something for that taxpayer government grant you gave them, it also gives valueless people something to glom onto providing them false worth.

Well good for you. Do you have a job? Do you support yourself? Are you majoring in engineering? Do you pay taxes?

And what you'll find out is they don't...but they do have that obscure gender nobody else does! And that's gotta count for something! Right???

The result is largely what you're witnessing among confused millennials where you have emasculated men, masculinized women, nobody having dates or sex, and an explosion in other forms of differentiation (yet no production). Tattoos, piercings, and (my all time favorite form of body mutilation) ear gauges.

The pinnacle example is privilege. It originally started with "white privilege" and "male privilege," but soon rapidly expanded (just like the number of genders) to include any other traits or variables normal, middle of America, Americans had.

This isn't to say racism and sexism hasn't existed in the history of this country or the world, but the above have nothing to do with race, but mental illness mixed with entitlement and a professional level of playing the victim for preferential treatment while cowardly hiding behind the genuine suffering of those who genuinely endured racism and sexism in the past.

And perhaps the most psychotic of them all - academia.

Here (like sexual harassment complaints) you can find a new and exciting example of mental illness coming out of America's colleges and universities EVERY DAY.

"Safe spaces," "triggering," "micro-aggressions," the aforementioned false rape accusation epidemic, all while you the taxpayers are guaranteeing these kids' worthless degrees.

The result is a generation of both professors and students who just refuse to adhere to reality or grow up, living in a state of perpetual adolescence.

from where in the political spectrum is this literal mental insanity coming from?

I know, I know, back in the 80's you had to worry about the "religious right." Nancy Reagan might have told you not to do drugs and Christians prefer you not abort your children. And I know, I know, some right wing idiots protested in Charlottesville several months ago.

But in the totality of mental illness and insanity this country is drowning in, is it coming from the right or the left? The democrats or the republicans? The socialists or the capitalists?

The answer is simple. The left has a COMPLETE monopoly on the political mental illness that is currently infecting (or trying to infect) the country. The left TOTALLY owns the insanity you see coming across the news wires daily. It is the left that screams at the sky, feeds their infants all vegan diets, claim "Baby It's Cold Outside" is rapey, conjure up ideas like "safe spaces, ne'er leave academia to work in the real world, force people to use transgender bathrooms, force people to violate their religion, force people to use "genderless pronouns," and in general act like the world's most spoiled group of insolent, petulant little brats it has ever known, AND if you don't obey them, they threaten you with fees, fines, jail, the law, and force.

This is not an argument that you should all go out and become card-carrying republicans today. Nor is it to say the right is not without its problems. I am merely trying to point out which side of the political spectrum is leaving you alone to do as you please, while the other is demanding you do things for them, pay things for them, even demanding you THINK like them and if you don't, they will punish you.

Consider this the next time there's an election.
______________________This Christmas consider making all your online purchases via Cappy's Amazon Affiliate program. Just click on the pretty girl below and start shopping! Or consider purchasing one of Cappy's books!

Sunday, December 10, 2017

It's meteoric rise recently has made every MSM outlet an expert and alarm sounder about bitcoin, it's risks, and how bubbly it is. But then it dawned on me...

Wasn't it these same people that couldn't see the housing bubble right in front of their faces in 2007?
Weren't these the same guys that would laud the latest Dotcom IPO, measuring its value in terms of Price to SALES because there were no earnings or profits in 1999?
Isn't is the same people who painfully, tooth-pullingly, are sheepishly admitting in 2017 that there MAY just be an education bubble?

You have the New York Times, Fast Company, even TIME for god's sake, nearly every tapioca pudding, dying MSM rag warning about bitcoin...

but these guys couldn't tell you when there WAS an actual bubble the past three times when these bubbles were slapping their dicks in these journalists' faces.

This makes me wonder, since their ability to predict and identify bubbles is so bad, wouldn't this actually be a GOOD sign for Bitcoin? A vote for the camp that bitcoin is NOT a bubble?

The reason I bring this up is because journalists and journalism majors are horrible economists. They're bandwagoners. They're not capable of genuine thought and haven't been since the damn 60's. This doesn't mean that I don't think bitcoin is in a bubble (I frankly have no clue what the price should be), but I do know your average journalist banging out these dire warning articles about bitcoin doesn't understand how block chain technology can revolutionize the world's financial system, doesn't understand the economics behind currencies, and sure the hell can't grasp the concept of a digital ledger system.

So why (aside from a classical exponential price) do you think it's a bubble?

Truth is I own some bitcoin, but it's more like a lottery card for me. A bit of fun to see where this technology might go and someday I can tell my grandnieces when "ole Uncle Clarey owned bitcoin." But if it's the industry wide consensus amongst journalists that Bitcoin is overvalued, I can hardly think of a better endorsement that it isn't.

Friday, December 08, 2017

If you didn't know, one of the local suburban mayors here - one Valerie Johnson - had a meltdown when she was challenged on "white privilege" during a city council meeting. There's not much to say about her (as there's surprisingly little about her on the internet), but I am not here to analyze her politics or to administer her The Clarey Test. There is more important role she serves and that is she allows us to truly understand what "white privilege" is so that instead of rolling your eyes the next time a leftist brings it up or blindly believing it as a liberal or leftist, we know exactly what we're talking about and we can actually move the concept forward and make tangible progress in improving race relations.

First, notice it is largely leftist white people who are the most ardent supporters of white privilege. Certainly non-whites may believe in the concept, just as women would be prone to believe in "male privilege," but when it comes to race notice it's most ardent cheerleaders are not blacks, hispanics, latinos, or Asians, but whites, typically in public positions. Mayors, congressmen, professors, university administrators, media types, even white people on social media. As long as the spot light is on them, they all eerily seem to really care about "white privilege."

This should raise the hairs on non-whites who believe in "white privilege" and raise the eyebrows of nearly everybody. Why is it white public figures all of the sudden have jumped on the white privilege bandwagon these past 5 years, while nearly no white person when asked in private believes in white privilege. There is something about being in public that forces you to believe in white privilege, bringing up the prospect that you really don't believe it deep down inside at all. And that missing variable is "acceptance."

Acceptance for what?

Well acceptance for your own personal advancement.

For example, it's very clear why mayoral candidates and other politicians claim to believe in white privilege - it gets them the minority vote. Notice how the entire New Brighton City Council is all white. Or how Minneapolis' former mayor was white too (but couldn't shut the f up about "privilege" her entire administration). Odd they believe so much in white privilege because if they did, they'd give up their seat and allow some non-whites to serve.

But it's not relegated simply to candidates for public office paying lip service to minorities to win their vote (the democrats have been doing that to blacks for years!). Take for example universities. Universities have be lauding their white-privilege and diversity credentials for about the past 2 decades under the premise they want to help minorities close the wage gap. And they intend to do that by providing minorities college educations that will lead them to great careers.

But do they?

In reality universities, and ESPECIALLY programs like "African American Studies" completely scam minority students out of their money simply to enrich themselves. I don't have to highlight the score of articles written about some poor minority college student who wasted $150,000 on some worthless liberal arts degree or got some kind of law degree in "social justice" endebting them an additional $200,000 in debt, and now can't find a job. Up front and with all the lip service, yes, these university professors and administrators all seemed to want to help non-whites, because.. "well of course! They SAID they believe in white privilege!" But in hindsight they simply robbed minorities (and especially women I might add) out of 100's of thousands of dollars and 4 to 8 years of their youth. The ulterior motive of public white people who stand by "white privilege" could not be any clearer.

And then there's just popularity. This is more the domain of social media and celebrity types. Angelina Jolie and others who adopt minority children are merely virtue signaling to show you what good, open-minded, non-racists they are (even though they don't give a damn about the children). The infamous Amy Biehl murder, whose parents forgave her black murderers, is another example of putting your popularity above...well, nearly everything else. But more commonly you just have to go to your average white woman/girl under 30's social account and she will more than likely, and loudly, proclaim how much she believes in white-privilege and can't wait to welcome some refugees into the country. Again, the hair on the back of your head should go up when a drunk white girl tries to tell you how much you're oppressed and how much she loves minorities because she's doing it for popularity and herself, not you.

This ultimately is what defines white-privilege (or any political concept of privilege). It is a tool to win over non-whites so that that person may advance themselves individually. The problem though is blaming white people does nothing tangibly to improve the plight of minorities (hello democrat party? hello detroit?) Worse, it wrongly diagnoses the problem minorities, women, or other victims of privilege face, ensuring their problem is never solved and their lives never improve.

For example, you can take the TOTALITY of ALL the written works about racism and white-privilege, be it academic studies, journals, news media, social media and political speeches, etc., as to why minorities (bar Asians and middle-easterners and a handful of other races) make less than whites. It would be MILLIONS of pages long with hundreds of billions of words. And you could take all of it that has been written, read, or discussed over the past 30-40 years.

None of that will help minorities as much as the following microscopic bit of advice:

You could take the same totality of everything that has been written about men and women, and sexism and misogyny. Which going back to the Susan B. Anthony/Elizabeth Stanton days would go back a hundred years. All the books written, all the screeds on feminist pages, all the words women's studies professors have said as to why women are oppressed, and let's just throw in the protests and "slut walks" to boot.

None of that will help women as much as the following few bits of advice:

And these two different bits of advice for two presumably oppressed groups exposes "white privilege" (and the white people who ardently claim to believe in it) for what it truly is.

Cowardice.

I have absolutely no reservations about telling people, minority or not, female or not, the truth. No matter how harsh, the truth is a better medicine than the most sweet tasting of lies because it is the truth. It is reality. And any decisions made from or based in truth is going to be infinitely better and more successful than decisions made in lies. So the medicine may taste harsh, but it WILL solve the problem and it WILL, over the long run help out the intended recipient more than a lifetime of feelings-sparring lies.

But to tell the truth takes courage. In the context of "privilege" you have to face accusations of racism or sexism if you don't tell a political group what they want to hear. Heck, you can be part of the group yourself and you'll be called a traitor, an "Uncle Tom" even threatened and assaulted. But liberal, leftist, democrat white people simply do not have the courage NOR DO THEY CARE ENOUGH ABOUT MINORITIES to take this risk and tell them the truth. They are cowards. And not only are they cowards, their ultimate goal, their ulterior motive was never about advancing or tangibly helping minorities or women.

It was just to get your vote, money, acceptance, or popularity from you.

Therefore, I ask any minority of female who believes in privilege to consider these things. I'm not saying you DON'T have to believe in privilege or certain groups of people have it better off than you. What I'm imploring you to do is ask what REALLY is driving this odd choir of democrat white people to fervently, and ironically, universally claiming to believe in white privilege. They ultimately do NOT have your best interests at heart and Valerie Johnson epitomizes this, ultimately defining what "white privilege" is.
_________________________

Though what originally attracted me to this story was that Kirchner (Fernandez) might actually get arrested, the story mentioned the ex-president was sworn in as a senator last week. After her disastrous running of Argentina you'd think she'd retire and just go on off and enjoy her grandchildren and Botox, but no. All evil people have in life is foisting their evil on others.

Tuesday, December 05, 2017

Participate with me, if you will, on a simple mental exercise about supply and economics.

As bitcoin approaches $12,000 (may have even passed it by now) there is much hubbub and discussion about it, from some economists that are old and don't understand crypto-currencies to vested-interest parties who will champion cryptocurrencies to enrich themselves. But to more simply understand bitcoin (or any crypto-currency) let us simply do what we all learned in the 4th grade and....

divide.

To be literal, the exchange rate for all currencies should be a simple division between the global supplies of currencies. You take the number of yen, you take the number of dollars, you divide them into each other and you have the LITERAL exchange rate of the currency pair. You take the number of Euros, the number of Rubles, divide and that's the literal exchange rate. Naturally there's other future-looking variables that determine the value of a currency. If you're a leftist moron living in Venezuela or an idiot tyrant who hates white people in Zimbabwe, you'll just print off more money (because that always worked) and that will negatively affect the exchange rate of your currency. But in a literal sense the global supply of any two things should be their literal and mathematically precise exchange rate.

Carats of diamonds to tons of dirt.
US dollars to barrels of oil.
Silver to cement.
It can be done for anything.

However, bitcoin presents an even easier calculation. Whereas the amount of cement made and the ounces of silver mined is yet to be determined, bitcoin is finite in that there will only be 21 million of them ever in existence. So you only need to take the supply of any currency and find out how many units of that currency there is globally per bitcoin and you in theory have a price (inter-currency demand differences duly noted). And with roughly 4 trillion in US dollars in circulation that gives us

$186,000 US dollars per bitcoin.

Now there are other arguments as to why bitcoicn and cryptocurrencies have value. And (though I own bitcoin) I'm not terribly sure it has yet reached the full faith and acceptance as a universally accepted medium of exchange. But to introduce some simple math into the debate we need to realize we HAVE tripled the money supply since the financial crisis and the debate I contend is not so much the value of cryptocurrencies or bitcoin, but rather the declining value of paper money we keep printing off.

This isn't to say that tomorrow the price of bitcoin should be $186,000. It may or may not. I'm merely pointing out there's 186,000 dollars out there in the world for every bitcoin...and that number is increasing as we print ourselves out of financial deficits.

I'll leave the speculation about bitcoin's price to the rest of you to discuss.

When you girls acknowledge majoring in stupid shit is why you don't make as much as men, then we'll talk. In the mean time, I am not going to heed your flawed claims "sexism" is why you don't make as much as men. You CHOOSE easier degrees that are...well..dumber than fuck. And when you stop acting "dumber than fuck" then I'll entertain arguments men are discriminating against you. In the meantime...you're just dumber than fuck.

Saturday, December 02, 2017

I always wondered why the government has ANY say in marriage whatsoever. I'm sure it has to do with women needing men with guns to force men who banged them to pay money forever because, well marriage is essentially a very complicated and expensive version of prostitution.